It's time to shit or get off the pot. Kucinich, to me, looks like the only choice.

I'm been reviewing all the candidates voting stances, various ratings and personal bios. From Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Obama, Richardson and Edwards. In my opinion, it's either time for all of us to shit or get off the pot, Kucinich is the only realy choice of the candidates.

This guy once had to deal with the mob taking a contract out on his life!!!! That's feakin amazing that he still sticks with what he's doing and continually makes the right choices.

I was looking into the last election and recalling the buyers remorse we all felt regarding Kerry's campaign. I like Kerry. I'm probably one of the few here that gets to talk to him on a regular basis. The sad thing is that the way that campaign ran is the way Kerry is. He's a little aloof at times and has a bit of a sketchy past (Not talking about the Swift Boat Vets crap but abandoning the Vietnam Vets when they were wire tapped for coming out against the war).

In the end, I think Dean was the best candidate to go up against the right and would not have taken any crap from them. I think any swift boating would have been quashed right out of the gate.

On the Kucinich front I fear we are making the same mistake. Fact is that in all the hooplah and excitement we have forgotten that the media is going to pick the candidate from our side that best reflects their corporate viewpoint. That's why folks like Richardson and Kucinich get treated like Wall Flowers in the campaign.

Knowing that I can't quite understand why this guy is not a slam dunk for the nomination. The corporate media by it's very nature is going to discourage people from voting for this guy. And I'm sorry but this guy HAS REAL LEADERSHIP QUALITIES!!!!

The stances he took for us while the rest of the party floundered on key issues like the war, Patriot Act, Bankruptsy Bill, Cloture Votes, and rigged elections are worth rewarding him. While those candidates on the stage dropped us all on our collective heads throughout these last 7 years Kucinich was always there sticking up for us.

He's not taking corporate cash either. Isn't the disparty in campaign funding something EVERYONE here had complained about? Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Obama are all stinking with corporate cash. What they say on the stage has all been paid for and co opted.

Imagine getting an unpaid for candidate in a debate with a Republican that's soaking it up in corporate funds? Kucinich will have an opportunity to take that punk down!!!!

Whay are people so reluctant to vote for people that speak your views and follows them up with REAL ACTIONS?

I just don't get it.

Kucinich is doing the way he is because of the fact that he refuses to play the game. Sad fact is that the majority of the people in our country look at the media for all of their answers instead of doing research themselves. That's also the reason why Ron Paul is getting support from people who think that he's an anti-war republican, and not realizing that he's in fact Libertarian who wants to privatize everything.

start calling your local TV stations and demand that Dennis Kucinich get fair & balanced coverage in the media!!!

...and write letters to your local newspapers!!

and read his Iraq plan. http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/kucinich-unveils-comprehensive-exit-plan-to-bring-troops-home,-stabilize-iraq/ and then tell me this guy is the one you want trying to solve problems. come on. it's absurd, and based in about as much reality as George Bush's Iraq Plan (read: none)

second: you think Dean would have avoided being swiftboated? the man screamed at a rally and folded like a house of cards in a hurricane in the face of a week's media attention.

third: if Kucinich had "real leadership qualities" he would have volunteers and cash (hell, Ron Paul, the freaking nutcase, raises much, much more money)

Kucinich is not taking corporate funds. To do that takes real LEADERHIP.

Ron Paul is bankrolled by insurance money.

I read DK's Iraq War plan and it is the best one. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that to secure a peace we have to withdraw. Gathering a coalition of UN forces is the smart way to go. The ME and the Iraqis RESPECT the UN because they are not going to try and establish permanent bases in that country.

Ron Paul's volunteers are all 9/11 nut cases. who are, Surprise-Surprise, right wing lunatics at their core. Their all anti jew nut jobs.

would participate in a UN peacekeeping program in Iraq starting in January of 2008. you need to find 80,000 peacekeepers (to help with rotations) where you going to find them? countries, please.

then, please tell me what the president or prime minister of that country should tell his or her citizens to get them to support sending soldiers to Iraq. you are the Prime Minister of Italy. Your allotment is 5,000 soldiers. what do yiu say to your people to get them to support sending soldiers to a war they are 80% opposed to.

and I don't get part of Kucinich's plan. do we withdraw before the conference, or after the conference? he says both things, kind of a big point, right?

oh, and Ron Paul raised more money, from individuals, in one day this month than Kucinich has raised total. explain.

is the sound of you moving the goal posts.

first off, goal posts are traditionally wood, not iron, but whatever.

second off, if you are going to stake your plan on withdrawal and replacement by a UNPK force, you better have a good idea of which countries are interested in supplying peacekeepers to help out (you know that peacekeeping is a voluntary contribution to the UN, there are no mandates, it requires countries to volunteer to send their soldiers (yes, peacekeepers are made up of military units under UN control) into the contested area and stand between two or more warring factions wearing blue helmets. Peacekeepers tend to work when a: the parties involved are exhausted and simply want breathing room to negotiate (no evidence this is the case in Iraq) and b: when they are backed by the threat of major military force from an uninvolved party. Peacekeepers worked in Kosovo, sort of, because they were backed by the big stick of the US military. the US, under Clinton, made it perfectly clear that any action against peacekeepers would be met with US and NATO military force. to say that the UN will solve the problem in Iraq is to demand further scrutiny and explanations about how this would work. I mean, how's that peacekeeping force in Darfur coming along? what's that you say? the UN hasn't been able to convince itself to send peacekeepers to stop a genocide, and you think it's possible to stop a civil war between armed parties?

Peacekeepers are different from soldiers, though. They could not help with our army rotations. They go in when a plan is in place to enforce it. PEACEFULLY. Was it Kosovo where UN peacekeepers were required to stand, watch, and DO NOTHING while the Serbs rounded up Muslim men and bussed them to mass graves?

I don't know any UN interventions in civil wars until there have been heavy agreements between the parties. Anybody else know of such interventions?

Because it says they were authorized to use force:

"ONUC was established by Security Council resolution 143 (1960) of 14 July 1960, by which it decided "to authorize the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the Government of the Republic of the Congo, to provide the Government with such military assistance as might be necessary until, through that Government's efforts with United Nations technical assistance, the national security forces might be able, in the opinion of the Government, to meet fully their tasks".

The initial mandate of ONUC was to ensure the withdrawal of Belgian forces from the Republic of the Congo, to assist the Government in maintaining law and order and to provide technical assistance. The function of ONUC was subsequently modified to include maintaining the territorial integrity and political independence of the Congo, preventing the occurrence of civil war and securing the removal from the Congo of all foreign military, paramilitary and advisory personnel not under the United Nations Command, and all mercenaries.

In implementing its mandate, UNUC was authorized to use force, if necessary. By resolution 161 (1961) of 21 February 1961, the Council urged that the United Nations "take immediately all appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of civil war in the Congo, including arrangements for ceasefire, the halting of all military operations, the prevention of clashes, and the use of force, if necessary, in the last resort".

By resolution 169 (1961) of 24 November 1961, the Council authorized the Secretary-General "to take vigorous action, including the use of the requisite measure of force, if necessary, for the immediate apprehension, detention pending legal action and/or deportation of all foreign military and paramilitary personnel and political advisers not under United Nations Command, and mercenaries", as laid down in Council’s resolution 161 (1961)."

<http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/onucM.htm>

Both sides didn't have an agreement, but like the ME, they respected the UN. That respect was enough for them to iron it out with the trust of the peace keeping force. The situation in the Congo was a hell of a lot worse than the mess in Iraq as well.

But the ONUC is over 40 years ago. I don't know if it's the same UN. But I sure don't know a better way out. I tend to favor just leaving, but that's political suicide on a hundred levels and I don't know who'd agree to it.

would participate in a UN peacekeeping program in Iraq starting in January of 2008. you need to find 80,000 peacekeepers (to help with rotations) where you going to find them? countries, please.

then, please tell me what the president or prime minister of that country should tell his or her citizens to get them to support sending soldiers to Iraq. you are the Prime Minister of Italy. Your allotment is 5,000 soldiers. what do yiu say to your people to get them to support sending soldiers to a war they are 80% opposed to.

and I don't get part of Kucinich's plan. do we withdraw before the conference, or after the conference? he says both things, kind of a big point, right?

You're taking someone elses thoughts and written words and passing them off as your own. His challenger for his House seat is saying the same damn thing you are.

He gives a timetable of roughly ninety days. He also mentions getting Syria, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia involved in mobilizing troops. Ya know, the people in the region who are directly impacted by the stabilization and have to deal with people crossing their borders to get a piece of the action in Iraq.

It's not going to take 80,000. His plan clearly states that it took 20,000 to secure the Congo wich is three times as large. Where you get 80,000 to do the job needs a source. The UN peace keeping troops which will be comprized of countries from the region will oversee the reconstruction of that country.

We leave and the insurgency is over.

As well as the war.


This stuff isn't rocket science and Kucinich's plan is not that difficult to comprehend.

Too bad for Dennis, and you, that he won't be able to act on it.....people think Dennis is out there, in the event you hadn't heard....funny...I had you pegged for a Dennis supporter....I wonder what you will do when he drops out and backs Biden....besides Biden is much more effective, and informed that Dennis is on this topic.

kicking those that are down and out.

I suppose Biden also supports denying health care to immigrant children.

His vote on the bankruptcy bill which screws people who get sick is right in line with that.

it's not possible to analyze someone's position and come up with the same conclusions? shucks, I guess that degree in International Relations does no good, I mean what's the use of writing a thesis on the use of neutral force to maintain peace in conflict zones, if you can't come to any sort of your own conclusions. It happens that his challenger is correct on this issue, his policy is absurdly simple and fails to take reality into account. sorry.

you really want to compare the DRC to Iraq? are you talking about the 1999-2007 peacekeeping mission, or the 1960 one? I assume you mean the 18,000 some odd peacekeepers and observers still in Kinshasa (MONUC) the ones who have basically abandoned everything outside of Kinshasa? Been to South Kivu lately? how's that working out? half the country is in a full grade civil war, and you think that 'peace' has come to the DRC? if there is such great peace going on, why are there so many child soldiers? why is there a Cholera outbreak in the Northeast? Cholera! go read up a bit on the DRC and then tell me there is peace there. what a joke.

and saying that international relations, the recognition of reality and trying to end a war isn't rocket science is to grossly oversimplify. Thinking this stuff is easy is what got us into this mess, how about we start taking the real world a little more seriously?

And make damn sure your vote is counted.

During which time he was free to carry a gun to protect himself. Yet he wants to deny the rest of us that same right.

If he's really against guns, he shouldn't have carried one. Face the danger unarmed, as he expects the rest of us to do.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=318&type=category&category=37&go.x=14&go.y=13

The issue of banning guns is not in there.

Background checks and trigger lock are.

Go to his own web site and read his own press release. He promises to fight to ban all handguns, the most popular civilian rifles, and many civilian shotguns.


Apparently he doesn't realize that police are civilians, unless he's promising to outlaw all police handguns as well... :eyes:

He also cosponsored H.R.2038, one of the most sweeping rifle and shotgun bans ever introduced in the United States (which, among other things, would have outlawed the most popular centerfire target rifles in America, outlawed all self-loading rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, outlawed all self-loading shotguns holding more than 5 shells, rifles holding more than 10 rounds, adjustable rifle stocks, etc. etc. etc.).

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/guns.php

I like Kucinich on a lot of issues, but his views on handgun and rifle/shotgun bans are an absolute dealbreaker for me. The gun issue is not, and has never been, about hunting weapons (only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts); it is primarily about the lawful ownership of handguns and small- to intermediate-caliber rifles. Half of those gun owners are Dems and indies, around one in four registered Dems personally owns a gun, and the vast majority are NOT hunters.


--------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

is 25%.

not half.

Roughly one in four registered Dems personally owns a gun.

Breaking down those who own guns by party affiliation, just over half are Dems and indies, and just under half are repubs; to put it another way, repubs own guns at a somewhat higher rate, but gun-owning repubs are slightly outnumbered by gun-owning Dems and indies.

Hunters vs. nonhunters--13 to 16 million hunters in the U.S., 65 to 80 million gun owners. 1 in 5 is a hunter.

DK was not 'free to carry a handgun'; at that time, concealed carry was illegal in this state. He was advised to do so by the local police, and that in conjunction with a bulletproof vest-he did so with their assistance and at their urging. Nor was it in isolation- he also had additional police protection throughout the time, to the extent that the cops were able to do so (Cleveland, especially the West Side where he lived, was pretty rough back then). As soon as the need passed,he stopped doing so.

No, seriously, Dennis is the Man.
I'll be voting for him in the primary.

You are preaching to your choir.

If you would go out and talk to the other 90% of the Democrats who are not voting for him, then turn your attention to the independents, you might be getting somewhere. Preaching to your choir is not going to get your candidated the nomination.

Get back to us with your results.

do is help Clinton get the nomination. I don't care how you spin it, he is not even up to 5% support in Iowa, that he would get the nomination would be a world class, honest to God miracle.

Edwards is also against corporations, and is polling much better. An article at CNN Money has a good article on Edwards and corporations http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100008849/index.htm I'm getting a better and better picture of this man, and he is much more the real deal than some of the others.

zalinda

I "get" it, and that is why I have no respect for what passes for "democracy" in our democratic republic.

I've also lost any respect I had for partisan politics in general, and for any political party.

Dennis is clearly the best choice, but he does not have enough of the "Brittany" factor. Maybe if he had claimed to be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

HRC is a woman and was marred to Bill, which plays into that whole Dynasty thing.

Obama is the half black/tiger woods candidate, with tones of JFK, which plays into the whole "feel good" type of thing, with the muslim sounding name providing just a touch of "what if" suspense.

Dennis is just not good TV. And if there is one thing that we know, being the leader of the free world is the most important part on TV, and we can't possibly think about electing somebody who doesn't got it.

about Progressive agendas... They would be a force to be reckoned with and there would be 16 yrs of blissful peace and worker's rights. I would love this team. I think together they'd be unstopable. Why can't they just team up as a ticket now... Their wives are lovely and ground their men. Their ideals are genuine. I would trust the two of them running the country. It would be a proud day for me as an American to elect an Edwards/ Kucinich team.

Regardless, you know he isn't getting nominated. I know it. We all know it. He did horribly in 2004, and is on course to do the same or worse. My guess is that most Kucinich supporters hate the idea of Hillary being nominated, so I hope you all get behind someone who will actually prevent that from happening.

Why?

Here's how it broke down:

Washington, Sep 25 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), issued the following statement after voting against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) conference report today:

“I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children,” Kucinich said. “This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

“Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress’ responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.

“HR 676 guarantees full health care coverage for all children. When considering a universal health care proposal, HR 676, the Medicare for All bill, is the only health care plan that addresses three important issues: quality, accessibility, and cost. HR 676 stands alone in an increasingly crowded field of efforts to provide health care coverage to all,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich voted for the original House-passed version of the bill because it contained language to grant health coverage for legal immigrant children. However, in today’s bill, this language was omitted.

THEN:
Although he's still unhappy with a children's health insurance plan adopted by Congress, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich said today that he's planning to vote to override President Bush's veto of the bill "because I think that the president has to be held to an accounting."

Kucinich said he voted against the bill last month because it would not extend coverage to 600,000 children of legal immigrants.

"What do you do when a child is sick?" Kucinich said. "Do you ask the child for their papers, for their documentation? What's happening to America when we take that kind of approach?"

Children's advocates and representatives of liberal groups were initially puzzled by Kucinich's vote on the matter. Some said that while they understood his desire to give health coverage to every child, the bill he rejected was better than anything else they were likely to pass, especially with Bush's veto threat. Getting votes to override a veto could require even more compromise, yet here was Kucinich, refusing to compromise from the start.

Now that Bush has fulfilled his veto promise, though, Kucinich will back the bill.

And thus was able to make his point about denying health care to American citizens, because of their ancestry. This kept the issue on the table and set it up to be dealt with next time around.

He then closed ranks and voted for the override, because that vote was in doubt and needed every 'Yea' that could be gotten.

In other words, a tough, practical, smart politician. Principled and pragmatic. AND a loyal Dem.

Denying healthcare to the children of immigrants is a very despicable thing to do.

I suppose denying coverage to a child with eppiglottitis and croup is smart legislation. All because they dont have the paperwork.

What more can be expected of people who support a known plagiarist?

I also like Richardson who you have mentioned and also, Dodd because of what he said he will do when he takes office (first attempt to restore the constitution by executive order). I'm also partial to Biden because he knows what he is doing.

He's waaay too short.